I love the post, but how in the Sam Hill did you manage to get that all typed up so quickly? It would have taken me two hours and a full pot of
coffee. It's almost like you had it ready to go just in case the topic came up.

Boncho, thanks for the sanity check and the logic and most of all for doing what I no longer have the will to do around here anymore. It seems that
people are getting more and more caught up in the partisanship and the more they are the more obfuscated logic and diluted the facts become. Mighty
murky waters these days. It's getting more and more tiring to swim.

A way to look at the national debt is to think about personal debt. Generally speaking, the greater your income, the greater your ability to handle
debt. So, even if your level of debt increases as your income rises, your debt to income ratio can remain the same. This is what we've seen with the
US national debt. Currently that ratio is lower than it was in 1995 and much lower that it was in 1948.

Does that mean that it's no big deal? No, of course not. Because as the actual debt level increases, so does the cost of servicing it. But does it
mean that the country is heading to ruin? Not necessarily, not as long as the GDP can keep pace. What it does mean is that those who produce that GDP
(not the government) are those who are on the hook to pay that debt...obviously.

Look at it positively. Each of us has a really good credit rating thanks to the government spending our money which they don't have.

Phage
A way to look at the national debt is to think about personal debt. Generally speaking, the greater your income, the greater your ability to handle
debt. So, even if your level of debt increases as your income rises, your debt to income ratio can remain the same. This is what we've seen with the
US national debt. Currently that ratio is lower than it was in 1995 and much lower that it was in 1948.

Does that mean that it's no big deal? No, of course not. Because as the actual debt level increases, so does the cost of servicing it. But does it
mean that the country is heading to ruin? Not necessarily, not as long as the GDP can keep pace. What it does mean is that those who produce that GDP
(not the government) are those who are on the hook to pay that debt...obviously.

Look at it positively. Each of us has a really good credit rating thanks to the government spending our money which they don't have.

1945 is not really a good example, unless you could predict the debt dropping the same amount in the upcoming years and then levelling off for 30. But
instead, the debt has been on an upward trend for 30 years, and things obviously have to change for it to stay within grasp of the GDP.

Both parties are on the same side. For their master and against the masses. The Kabuki dance of good cop - bad cop is for the unwashed, radical left
and right party lead cheerleaders and mindless robot followers.

The only troubling thing is the brazen gaul of the Democrats to expose the routine of raping the people of their money by doing it so much and so
fast. They ignored the memo that said "slow and easy" 15% per year profit slow boil and the people won't notice. Instead they went for the quick
kill 400% which exposed the whole scam thats been going on since 1913 and the 16th amendment.

Yep, I tend to agree, I think it all traces back to Reagonomics. Read a great book on it once, it was really the era where Reagan and Thatcher took
all the control away from the banks and big business and set off the whole debt revolution.

Ok, so explain to me how the debt ceiling prevents accumulating debt in a responsible way.

I think you know me well enough from posts around here to know I rarely, if ever, answer a question with a question. So it's not being sarcastic or
snarky here....but dead serious.

Please, explain to me this concept of accumulation of debt in a responsible way, as a starting point?

I carry the mindset that debt is irresponsible on it's face, period. We have to make some 'lesser evil' trade offs for it, like families paying a
mortgage (to thy own self.....and all that). Still, I don't see debt, itself, as responsible for a deliberate plan and long term solution.

Given that Federal Government budgets show debt, on current and intended trends, hitting 25 trillion dollars by 2022 (I figure sooner, myself.. MUCH
sooner at this rate), long term accumulation of debt beyond anything even possible through extreme pain to pay back appears to be the goal. The actual
end game here.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.